| 1. Sophocles, Antigone, 450-451, 453-460, 452 (5th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Najman (2010), The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, 92 |
| 2. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 5.7 (4th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •philosophy (greek/hellenistic) Found in books: Najman (2010), The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, 92 |
3. Cicero, On Duties, 3.69 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •philosophy (greek/hellenistic) Found in books: Najman (2010), The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, 91| 3.69. Hoc quamquam video propter depravationem consuetudinis neque more turpe haberi neque aut lege sanciri aut iure civili, tamen naturae lege sanctum est. Societas est enim (quod etsi saepe dictum est, dicendum est tamen saepius), latissime quidem quae pateat, omnium inter omnes, interior eorum, qui eiusdem gentis sint, propior eorum, qui eiusdem civitatis. Itaque maiores aliud ius gentium, aliud ius civile esse voluerunt; quod civile, non idem continuo gentium, quod autem gentium, idem civile esse debet. Sed nos veri iuris germanaeque iustitiae solidam et expressam effigiem nullam tenemus, umbra et imaginibus utimur. Eas ipsas utinam sequeremur! feruntur enim ex optimis naturae et veritatis exemplis. | 3.69. Owing to the low ebb of public sentiment, such a method of procedure, I find, is neither by custom accounted morally wrong nor forbidden either by statute or by civil law; nevertheless it is forbidden by the moral law. For there is a bond of fellowship â although I have often made this statement, I must still repeat it again and again â which has the very widest application, uniting all men together and each to each. This bond of union is closer between those who belong to the same nation, and more intimate still between those who are citizens of the same city-state. It is for this reason that our forefathers chose to understand one thing by the universal law and another by the civil law. The civil law is not necessarily also the universal law; but the universal law ought to be also the civil law. But we possess no substantial, life-like image of true Law and genuine Justice; a mere outline sketch is all that we enjoy. I only wish that we were true even to this; for, even as it is, it is drawn from the excellent models which Nature and Truth afford. |
|
4. Philo of Alexandria, On The Embassy To Gaius, 152-153, 155-158, 154 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Najman (2010), The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, 87 | 154. And there is most undeniable proof that he was never influenced or puffed up by the excessive honours paid to him, in the fact that he did not approve of any one's addressing him as master or god, but if any one used such expressions he was angry; and we may see it too in his approbation of the Jews, who he well knew most religiously avoided all such language. |
|
5. Philo of Alexandria, On The Life of Moses, 2.9-2.14, 2.51-2.52 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •philosophy (greek/hellenistic) Found in books: Najman (2010), The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, 90, 253 | 2.9. Now these four qualities are closely connected with and related to the legislative power, namely, humility, the love of justice, the love of virtue, and the hatred of iniquity; for every individual who has any desire for exercising his talents as a lawgiver is under the influence of each of these feelings. It is the province of humanity to prepare for adoption such opinions as will benefit the common weal, and to teach the advantages which will proceed from them. It is the part of justice to point out how we ought to honour equality, and to assign to every man his due according to his deserts. It is the part of the love of virtue to embrace those things which are by nature good, and to give to every one who deserves them facilities without limit for the most unrestrained enjoyment of happiness. It is also the province of the hatred of iniquity to reject all those who dishonour virtue, and to look upon them as common enemies of the human race. 2.10. Therefore it is a very great thing if it has fallen to the lot of any one to arrive at any one of the qualities before mentioned, and it is a marvellous thing, as it should seem, for any one man to have been able to grasp them all, which in fact Moses appears to have been the only person who has ever done, having given a very clear description of the aforesaid virtues in the commandments which he established. 2.11. And those who are well versed in the sacred scriptures know this, for if he had not had these principles innate within him he would never have compiled those scriptures at the promptings of God. And he gave to those who were worthy to use them the most admirable of all possessions, namely, faithful copies and imitations of the original examples which were consecrated and enshrined in the soul, which became the laws which he revealed and established, displaying in the clearest manner the virtues which I have enumerated and described above. 2.12. But that he himself is the most admirable of all the lawgivers who have ever lived in any country either among the Greeks or among the barbarians, and that his are the most admirable of all laws, and truly divine, omitting no one particular which they ought to comprehend, there is the clearest proof possible in this fact, the laws of other lawgivers, 2.13. if any one examines them by his reason, he will find to be put in motion in an innumerable multitude of pretexts, either because of wars, or of tyrannies, or of some other unexpected events which come upon nations through the various alterations and innovations of fortune; and very often luxury, abounding in all kind of superfluity and unbounded extravagance, has overturned laws, from the multitude not being able to bear unlimited prosperity, but having a tendency to become insolent through satiety, and insolence is in opposition to law. 2.14. But the enactments of this lawgiver are firm, not shaken by commotions, not liable to alteration, but stamped as it were with the seal of nature herself, and they remain firm and lasting from the day on which they were first promulgated to the present one, and there may well be a hope that they will remain to all future time, as being immortal, as long as the sun and the moon, and the whole heaven and the whole world shall endure. 2.51. For both in his commandments and also in his prohibitions he suggests and recommends rather than commands, endeavouring with many prefaces and perorations to suggest the greater part of the precepts that he desires to enforce, desiring rather to allure men to virtue than to drive them to it, and looking upon the foundation and beginning of a city made with hands, which he has made the commencement of his work a commencement beneath the dignity of his laws, looking rather with the most accurate eye of his mind at the importance and beauty of his whole legislative system, and thinking it too excellent and too divine to be limited as it were by any circle of things on earth; and therefore he has related the creation of that great metropolis, the world, thinking his laws the most fruitful image and likeness of the constitution of the whole world. 2.52. At all events if any one were inclined to examine with accuracy the powers of each individual and particular law, he will find them all aiming at the harmony of the universe, and corresponding to the law of eternal nature: |
|
6. Philo of Alexandria, Against Flaccus, 50 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •philosophy (greek/hellenistic) Found in books: Najman (2010), The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, 87 | 50. For if we were to neglect the opportunity of adhering to our national customs when it is afforded to us, we should deserve to meet with the severest punishment, as not giving any proper or adequate return for the benefits which we have received; but if, while it is in our power to do so, we, in conformity with our own laws which Augustus himself is in the habit of confirming, obey in everything, then I do not see what great, or even what small offence can be laid to our charge; unless any one were to impute to us that we do not transgress the laws of deliberate purpose, and that we do not intentionally take care to depart from our national customs, which practices, even if they at first attack others, do often in the end visit those who are guilty of them. |
|
| 7. Philo of Alexandria, Allegorical Interpretation, 147 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •philosophy (greek/hellenistic) Found in books: Najman (2010), The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, 253 |
8. Mishnah, Eduyot, 8.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •philosophy (greek/hellenistic) Found in books: Najman (2010), The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, 85| 8.7. "אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, מְקֻבָּל אֲנִי מֵרַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי, שֶׁשָּׁמַע מֵרַבּוֹ וְרַבּוֹ מֵרַבּוֹ, הֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי, שֶׁאֵין אֵלִיָּהוּ בָא לְטַמֵּא וּלְטַהֵר, לְרַחֵק וּלְקָרֵב, אֶלָּא לְרַחֵק הַמְקֹרָבִין בִּזְרוֹעַ וּלְקָרֵב הַמְרֻחָקִין בִּזְרוֹעַ. מִשְׁפַּחַת בֵּית צְרִיפָה הָיְתָה בְעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן וְרִחֲקָהּ בֶּן צִיּוֹן בִּזְרוֹעַ, וְעוֹד אַחֶרֶת הָיְתָה שָׁם וְקֵרְבָהּ בֶּן צִיּוֹן בִּזְרוֹעַ. כְּגוֹן אֵלּוּ, אֵלִיָּהוּ בָא לְטַמֵּא וּלְטַהֵר, לְרַחֵק וּלְקָרֵב. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, לְקָרֵב, אֲבָל לֹא לְרַחֵק. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, לְהַשְׁווֹת הַמַּחֲלֹקֶת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, לֹא לְרַחֵק וְלֹא לְקָרֵב, אֶלָּא לַעֲשׂוֹת שָׁלוֹם בָּעוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מלאכי ג) הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי שֹׁלֵחַ לָכֶם אֵת אֵלִיָּה הַנָּבִיא וְגוֹ' וְהֵשִׁיב לֵב אָבוֹת עַל בָּנִים וְלֵב בָּנִים עַל אֲבוֹתָם: \n", | 8.7. "Rabbi Joshua said: I have received a tradition from Rabban Yoha ben Zakkai, who heard it from his teacher, and his teacher [heard it] from his teacher, as a halakhah [given] to Moses from Sinai, that Elijah will not come to pronounce unclean or to pronounce clean, to put away or to bring near, but to put away those brought near by force and to bring near those put away by force. The family of Beth Tzriphah was on the other side of the Jordan and Ben Zion put it away by force; and yet another family was there, and Ben Zion brought it near by force. It is such as these that Elijah will come to pronounce unclean or to pronounce clean, to put away or to bring near. Rabbi Judah says: to bring near, but not to put away. Rabbi Shimon says: to conciliate disputes. And the Sages say: neither to put away nor to bring near, but to make peace in the world, for it is said, “Behold I send to you Elijah the prophet”, etc., “and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children and the heart of the children to their fathers” (Malachi 3:23-2.", |
|
9. Mishnah, Peah, 2.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •philosophy (greek/hellenistic) Found in books: Najman (2010), The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, 85| 2.6. "מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁזָּרַע רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אִישׁ הַמִּצְפָּה לִפְנֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וְעָלוּ לְלִשְׁכַּת הַגָּזִית וְשָׁאָלוּ. אָמַר נַחוּם הַלַּבְלָר, מְקֻבָּל אֲנִי מֵרַבִּי מְיָאשָׁא, שֶׁקִּבֵּל מֵאַבָּא, שֶׁקִּבֵּל מִן הַזּוּגוֹת, שֶׁקִּבְּלוּ מִן הַנְּבִיאִים, הֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי, בְּזוֹרֵעַ אֶת שָׂדֵהוּ שְׁנֵי מִינֵי חִטִּין, אִם עֲשָׂאָן גֹּרֶן אַחַת, נוֹתֵן פֵּאָה אַחַת. שְׁתֵּי גְרָנוֹת, נוֹתֵן שְׁתֵּי פֵאוֹת: \n", | 2.6. "It happened that Rabbi Shimon of Mitzpah planted his field [with two different kinds] and came before Rabban Gamaliel. They both went up to the Chamber of Hewn Stone and asked [about the law]. Nahum the scribe said: I have a tradition from Rabbi Meyasha, who received it from Abba, who received it from the pairs [of sage], who received it from the prophets, a halakhah of Moses from Sinai, that one who plants his field with two species of wheat, if he makes up of it one threshing-floor, he gives only one peah, but if two threshing-floors, he gives two peahs.", |
|
10. Mishnah, Yadayim, 4.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •philosophy (greek/hellenistic) Found in books: Najman (2010), The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, 85| 4.3. "בּוֹ בַיּוֹם אָמְרוּ, עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב, מַה הֵן בַּשְּׁבִיעִית. גָּזַר רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, מַעְשַׂר עָנִי. וְגָזַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי. אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, עָלֶיךָ רְאָיָה לְלַמֵּד, שֶׁאַתָּה מַחְמִיר, שֶׁכָּל הַמַּחְמִיר, עָלָיו רְאָיָה לְלַמֵּד. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָחִי, אֲנִי לֹא שִׁנִּיתִי מִסֵּדֶר הַשָּׁנִים, טַרְפוֹן אָחִי שִׁנָּה, וְעָלָיו רְאָיָה לְלַמֵּד. הֵשִׁיב רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, מִצְרַיִם חוּץ לָאָרֶץ, עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב חוּץ לָאָרֶץ, מַה מִּצְרַיִם מַעְשַׂר עָנִי בַשְּׁבִיעִית, אַף עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב מַעְשַׂר עָנִי בַשְּׁבִיעִית. הֵשִׁיב רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, בָּבֶל חוּץ לָאָרֶץ, עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב חוּץ לָאָרֶץ, מַה בָּבֶל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בַשְּׁבִיעִית, אַף עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בַשְּׁבִיעִית. אָמַר רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, מִצְרַיִם שֶׁהִיא קְרוֹבָה, עֲשָׂאוּהָ מַעְשַׂר עָנִי, שֶׁיִּהְיוּ עֲנִיֵּי יִשְׂרָאֵל נִסְמָכִים עָלֶיהָ בַּשְּׁבִיעִית, אַף עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב, שֶׁהֵם קְרוֹבִים, נַעֲשִׂים מַעְשַׂר עָנִי, שֶׁיִּהְיוּ עֲנִיֵּי יִשְׂרָאֵל נִסְמָכִים עֲלֵיהֶם בַּשְּׁבִיעִית. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, הֲרֵי אַתָּה כִמְהַנָּן מָמוֹן, וְאֵין אַתָּה אֶלָּא כְמַפְסִיד נְפָשׁוֹת. קוֹבֵעַ אַתָּה אֶת הַשָּׁמַיִם מִלְּהוֹרִיד טַל וּמָטָר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מלאכי ג), הֲיִקְבַּע אָדָם אֱלֹהִים כִּי אַתֶּם קֹבְעִים אֹתִי וַאֲמַרְתֶּם בַּמֶּה קְבַעֲנוּךָ הַמַּעֲשֵׂר וְהַתְּרוּמָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, הֲרֵינִי כְמֵשִׁיב עַל טַרְפוֹן אָחִי, אֲבָל לֹא לְעִנְיַן דְּבָרָיו. מִצְרַיִם מַעֲשֶׂה חָדָשׁ, וּבָבֶל מַעֲשֶׂה יָשָׁן, וְהַנִּדּוֹן שֶׁלְּפָנֵינוּ מַעֲשֶׂה חָדָשׁ. יִדּוֹן מַעֲשֶׂה חָדָשׁ מִמַּעֲשֶׂה חָדָשׁ, וְאַל יִדּוֹן מַעֲשֶׂה חָדָשׁ מִמַּעֲשֶׂה יָשָׁן. מִצְרַיִם מַעֲשֵׂה זְקֵנִים, וּבָבֶל מַעֲשֵׂה נְבִיאִים, וְהַנִּדּוֹן שֶׁלְּפָנֵינוּ מַעֲשֵׂה זְקֵנִים. יִדּוֹן מַעֲשֵׂה זְקֵנִים מִמַּעֲשֵׂה זְקֵנִים, וְאַל יִדּוֹן מַעֲשֵׂה זְקֵנִים מִמַּעֲשֵׂה נְבִיאִים. נִמְנוּ וְגָמְרוּ, עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב מְעַשְּׂרִין מַעְשַׂר עָנִי בַּשְּׁבִיעִית. וּכְשֶׁבָּא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן דֻּרְמַסְקִית אֵצֶל רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּלוֹד, אָמַר לוֹ, מַה חִדּוּשׁ הָיָה לָכֶם בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ הַיּוֹם. אָמַר לוֹ, נִמְנוּ וְגָמְרוּ, עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב מְעַשְּׂרִים מַעְשַׂר עָנִי בַּשְּׁבִיעִית. בָּכָה רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְאָמַר, סוֹד ה' לִירֵאָיו וּבְרִיתוֹ לְהוֹדִיעָם (תהלים כה). צֵא וֶאֱמֹר לָהֶם, אַל תָּחֹשּׁוּ לְמִנְיַנְכֶם. מְקֻבָּל אֲנִי מֵרַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי, שֶׁשָּׁמַע מֵרַבּוֹ, וְרַבּוֹ מֵרַבּוֹ עַד הֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי, שֶׁעַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב מְעַשְּׂרִין מַעְשַׂר עָנִי בַּשְּׁבִיעִית: \n", | 4.3. "On that day they said: what is the law applying to Ammon and Moab in the seventh year? Rabbi Tarfon decreed tithe for the poor. And Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah decreed second tithe. Rabbi Ishmael said: Elazar ben Azariah, you must produce your proof because you are expressing the stricter view and whoever expresses a stricter view has the burden to produce the proof. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Ishmael, my brother, I have not deviated from the sequence of years, Tarfon, my brother, has deviated from it and the burden is upon him to produce the proof. Rabbi Tarfon answered: Egypt is outside the land of Israel, Ammon and Moab are outside the land of Israel: just as Egypt must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year, so must Ammon and Moab give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah answered: Babylon is outside the land of Israel, Ammon and Moab are outside the land of Israel: just as Babylon must give second tithe in the seventh year, so must Ammon and Moab give second tithe in the seventh year. Rabbi Tarfon said: on Egypt which is near, they imposed tithe for the poor so that the poor of Israel might be supported by it during the seventh year; so on Ammon and Moab which are near, we should impose tithe for the poor so that the poor of Israel may be supported by it during the seventh year. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Behold, you are like one who would benefit them with gain, yet you are really as one who causes them to perish. Would you rob the heavens so that dew or rain should not descend? As it is said, \"Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. But you: How have we robbed You? In tithes and heave-offerings\" (Malakhi 3:8). Rabbi Joshua said: Behold, I shall be as one who replies on behalf of Tarfon, my brother, but not in accordance with the substance of his arguments. The law regarding Egypt is a new act and the law regarding Babylon is an old act, and the law which is being argued before us is a new act. A new act should be argued from [another] new act, but a new act should not be argued from an old act. The law regarding Egypt is the act of the elders and the law regarding Babylon is the act of the prophets, and the law which is being argued before us is the act of the elders. Let one act of the elders be argued from [another] act of the elders, but let not an act of the elders be argued from an act of the prophets. The votes were counted and they decided that Ammon and Moab should give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. And when Rabbi Yose ben Durmaskit visited Rabbi Eliezer in Lod he said to him: what new thing did you have in the house of study today? He said to him: their votes were counted and they decided that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. Rabbi Eliezer wept and said: \"The counsel of the Lord is with them that fear him: and his covet, to make them know it\" (Psalms 25:14). Go and tell them: Don't worry about your voting. I received a tradition from Rabbi Yoha ben Zakkai who heard it from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher, and so back to a halachah given to Moses from Sinai, that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year.", |
|
| 11. Tosefta, Yadayim, 2.16 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •philosophy (greek/hellenistic) Found in books: Najman (2010), The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, 85 |
12. Babylonian Talmud, Hagigah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •philosophy (greek/hellenistic) Found in books: Najman (2010), The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, 85| 3a. חייב בשמחה ואת שאינו לא שומע ולא מדבר ושוטה וקטן פטורין אף מן השמחה הואיל ופטורין מכל מצות האמורות בתורה מאי שנא לענין ראיה דפטירי ומאי שנא לענין שמחה דמחייבי,לענין ראיה גמר ראיה ראיה מהקהל דכתיב (דברים לא, יב) הקהל את העם האנשים והנשים והטף וכתיב (דברים לא, יא) בבא כל ישראל לראות,והתם מנלן דכתיב (דברים לא, יב) למען ישמעו ולמען ילמדו ותניא למען ישמעו פרט למדבר ואינו שומע ולמען ילמדו פרט לשומע ואינו מדבר,למימרא דכי לא משתעי לא גמר והא הנהו תרי אילמי דהוו בשבבותיה דרבי בני ברתיה דרבי יוחנן בן גודגדא ואמרי לה בני אחתיה דרבי יוחנן דכל אימת דהוה עייל רבי לבי מדרשא הוו עיילי ויתבי קמייהו ומניידי ברישייהו ומרחשין שפוותייהו,ובעי רבי רחמי עלייהו ואיתסו ואשתכח דהוו גמירי הלכתא וספרא וספרי וכולה הש"ס,אמר מר זוטרא קרי ביה למען ילמדו רב אשי אמר ודאי למען ילמדו הוא דאי סלקא דעתך למען ילמדו וכיון דלא משתעי לא גמר וכיון דלא שמע לא גמר,האי מלמען ישמעו נפקא אלא ודאי למען ילמדו הוא,אמר ר' תנחום חרש באזנו אחת פטור מן הראיה שנאמר (דברים לא, יא) באזניהם,והאי באזניהם מבעי ליה באזניהם דכולהו ישראל ההוא מנגד כל ישראל נפקא אי מנגד כל ישראל הוה אמינא אע"ג דלא שמעי כתב רחמנא באזניהם והוא דשמעי,ההוא מלמען ישמעו נפקא,אמר רבי תנחום חיגר ברגלו אחת פטור מן הראיה שנאמר רגלים,והא רגלים מבעי ליה פרט לבעלי קבין ההוא מפעמים נפקא דתניא פעמים אין פעמים אלא רגלים וכן הוא אומר (ישעיהו כו, ו) תרמסנה רגל רגלי עני פעמי דלים ואומר (שיר השירים ז, ב) מה יפו פעמיך בנעלים בת נדיב,דרש רבא מאי דכתיב מה יפו פעמיך בנעלים בת נדיב כמה נאין רגליהן של ישראל בשעה שעולין לרגל בת נדיב בתו של אברהם אבינו שנקרא נדיב שנאמר (תהלים מז, י) נדיבי עמים נאספו עם אלהי אברהם אלהי אברהם ולא אלהי יצחק ויעקב אלא אלהי אברהם שהיה תחילה לגרים,אמר רב כהנא דרש רב נתן בר מניומי משום ר' תנחום מאי דכתיב (בראשית לז, כד) והבור רק אין בו מים משמע שנאמר והבור רק איני יודע שאין בו מים אלא מים אין בו אבל נחשים ועקרבים יש בו,ת"ר מעשה ברבי יוחנן בן ברוקה ורבי אלעזר (בן) חסמא שהלכו להקביל פני ר' יהושע בפקיעין אמר להם מה חידוש היה בבית המדרש היום אמרו לו תלמידיך אנו ומימיך אנו שותין אמר להם אף על פי כן אי אפשר לבית המדרש בלא חידוש,שבת של מי היתה שבת של ר' אלעזר בן עזריה היתה ובמה היתה הגדה היום אמרו לו בפרשת הקהל ומה דרש בה,(דברים לא, יב) הקהל את העם האנשים והנשים והטף אם אנשים באים ללמוד נשים באות לשמוע טף למה באין כדי ליתן שכר למביאיהן אמר להם מרגלית טובה היתה בידכם ובקשתם לאבדה ממני,ועוד דרש (דברים כו, יז) את ה' האמרת היום וה' האמירך היום,אמר להם הקב"ה לישראל אתם עשיתוני חטיבה אחת בעולם ואני אעשה אתכם חטיבה אחת בעולם אתם עשיתוני חטיבה אחת בעולם דכתיב (דברים ו, ד) שמע ישראל ה' אלהינו ה' אחד ואני אעשה אתכם חטיבה אחת בעולם שנאמר | 3a. they are b obligated in rejoicing. And one who does not hear and does not speak, an imbecile, and a minor are /b all b exempt even from rejoicing, since they are exempt from all the mitzvot mentioned in the Torah. /b The Gemara asks: b What is different with regard to /b the mitzva of b appearance, that /b a deaf person and a mute b are exempt /b from this mitzva? b And what is different with regard to /b the mitzva of b rejoicing, that they are obligated? /b ,The Gemara explains: b With regard to /b their exemption from the obligation of b appearance, /b the i tanna /i b derives /b this i halakha /i by means of a verbal analogy between the term b appearance /b stated with regard to the mitzva of appearance at the Temple on the pilgrim Festival and the term b appearance /b stated with regard to the mitzva b of assembly, /b i.e., the obligation to assemble in the Temple on i Sukkot /i in the year following the Sabbatical Year. b As it is written, /b with regard to the mitzva of assembly: b “Assemble the people, the men and the women and the little ones” /b (Deuteronomy 31:12), b and it is written /b in that context: b “When all of Israel come to appear” /b (Deuteronomy 31:11). Just as a deaf person and a mute are not obligated to attend the assembly, they are likewise exempt from appearing in the Temple on the Festivals.,The Gemara asks: b And there, /b with regard to the mitzva of assembly, b from where do we /b derive that a deaf person and a mute are exempt? b As it is written /b there: b “That they may hear, and that they may learn” /b (Deuteronomy 31:12), b and it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that the phrase b “that they may hear” excludes one who speaks but does not hear; /b and the phrase b “and that they may learn” excludes one who hears but does not speak, /b as he is unable to learn.,The Gemara asks: b Is that to say that one who /b is b not /b able to b speak /b is b not /b able to b learn? But /b consider the following incident. There were b two mute people who were in the neighborhood of Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi. They were the b sons of the daughter of Rabbi Yoḥa ben Gudgeda, and some say /b that they were the b sons of the sister of Rabbi Yoḥa /b ben Gudgeda. b Whenever Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b would enter the study hall they would /b also b enter and sit before /b the Sages, b and they would nod their heads /b as if they understood b and move their lips. /b , b And Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b prayed for /b God to have b mercy upon them, and they were healed. And it was discovered that they had learned /b and were proficient in b i halakha /i , /b i.e., Mishna; b i Sifra /i , /b the halakhic midrash on Leviticus; b i Sifrei /i , /b the halakhic midrash on Numbers and Deuteronomy; b and the entire Talmud. /b This shows that those who cannot speak are able to learn., b Mar Zutra said /b that one should b read into /b the verse: b That they may teach [ i yelamdu /i ], /b instead of: “That they may learn [ i yilmedu /i ]” (Deuteronomy 31:12). Even if a mute person is able to learn he cannot teach others. b Rav Ashi said /b that the verse b is certainly /b to be read: b That they may teach. As, if it enters your mind /b that one should read: b “That they may learn,” /b as it is written, b and /b you will explain that b since he is not /b able to b speak he /b is b not /b able to b learn, /b and similarly the reason for the exemption of a deaf person is that b since he is not /b able to b hear he is not /b able to b learn, /b you will have erred. According to this interpretation, it is clear from the context that a deaf person is exempted by the phrase: “That they may hear,” not merely due to his lack of hearing but because his inability to hear prevents him from learning.,However, this is incorrect, for if so, b this /b exemption of a mute could also be b derived from: “That they may hear,” /b as the verse has already taught the basic principle that anyone who cannot learn is not obligated in the mitzva of assembly. b Rather, /b the verse b is certainly /b to be read as: b “That they may teach,” /b which indicates that although a mute is able to learn himself, and therefore he is not exempted by the previous verse, he is nevertheless exempt because he is unable to teach others., b Rabbi Tanḥum said: One who is deaf in one ear is exempt from /b the mitzva of b appearance /b in the Temple, b as it is stated /b with regard to the mitzva of assembly: “When all Israel comes to appear before the Lord your God in the place that He shall choose, you shall read this law before all Israel b in their ears” /b (Deuteronomy 31:11). This verse indicates that the obligation of assembly applies only to those who can hear with both ears. Since the two mitzvot are connected by verbal analogy, as explained above, this i halakha /i applies to the mitzva of appearance as well.,The Gemara asks: b But this /b phrase: b “In their ears,” is necessary /b to teach that the reading of the Torah at the assembly must enter b the ears of the entire Jewish people. /b Consequently, it cannot serve as the source of the i halakha /i concerning one who is deaf in one ear. The Gemara answers: b That /b i halakha /i , that the reading of the Torah must be heard by the entire Jewish people, b is derived from /b the phrase: b “Before all Israel” /b (Deuteronomy 31:11). The Gemara asks: b If /b that i halakha /i were derived b from: “Before all Israel,” I would say /b that the mitzva applies b even though they cannot hear; /b therefore, b the Merciful One writes: “In their ears,” and that /b indicates that b they /b must be able to b hear. /b If so, this phrase is not available for deriving the i halakha /i of someone who is deaf in one ear.,The Gemara answers: b That /b i halakha /i , that the people must hear, b is derived from: “That they may hear” /b (Deuteronomy 31:12). Therefore, the phrase: “In their ears,” is not required for that purpose. Rather, it teaches that only those who can hear with both ears are obligated in the mitzva of assembly, and by extension, in the mitzva of appearance as well., b Rabbi Tanḥum said: One who is lame in one leg is exempt from /b the mitzva of b appearance, as it is stated: /b “Three b times [ i regalim /i ] /b shall you keep a feast for Me in the year” (Exodus 23:14).Since the term for feet is i raglayim /i , it can be inferred from here that the obligation to ascend involves the use of both of one’s legs.,The Gemara asks: b But /b the term b “ i regalim /i ” is necessary /b to b exclude people with artificial legs. /b Although these people are capable of walking, as they do not have two natural legs they are exempt from ascending to the Temple. The Gemara responds: b That /b i halakha /i is b derived from: /b “Three b occasions [ i pe’amim /i ] /b in the year all your males will appear before the Lord God” (Exodus 23:17). The term i pe’amim /i can also mean legs, b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i , with regard to the term b “ i pe’amim /i ”: i Pe’amim /i means nothing other /b than b legs. And so it says: “The foot shall tread it down, even the feet of the poor and the steps [ i pa’amei /i ] of the needy” /b (Isaiah 26:6), b and it says: “How beautiful are your feet [ i fe’amayikh /i ] in sandals, daughter of the prince” /b (Song of Songs 7:2).,With regard to the aforementioned verse, b Rava taught: What is /b the meaning of that b which is written: “How beautiful are your feet in sandals, daughter of the prince [ i nadiv /i ]”? How pleasant are the feet [ i raglehen /i ] of the Jewish people when they ascend to /b Jerusalem b on the pilgrimage Festival [ i regel /i ]. “Daughter of the prince”: /b this is referring to b the daughter of Abraham our father who is called a prince, as it is stated: “The princes of the peoples are gathered together, the people of the God of Abraham” /b (Psalms 47:10). The Gemara asks: Is God only b “the God of Abraham,” and not the God of Isaac and Jacob? Rather, /b the verse mentions b “the God of Abraham,” as /b he b was the first of the converts. /b Abraham was the first prince, as all converts who follow in his path are called “the princes of the peoples.”,The Gemara cites another statement of Rabbi Tanḥum. b Rav Kahana said /b that b Rabbi Natan bar Manyumi taught in the name of Rabbi Tanḥum: What is /b the meaning of b that which is written /b with regard to Joseph: “And they took him, and cast him into the pit; b and the pit was empty, there was no water in it” /b (Genesis 37:24). b By inference from that which is stated: “And the pit was empty,” don’t I know that there was no water in it? Rather, /b this teaches that b there was no water in it, but there were snakes and scorpions in it. /b ,§ b The Sages taught: /b There was b an incident involving Rabbi Yoḥa ben Beroka and Rabbi Elazar ben Ḥisma, when they went to greet Rabbi Yehoshua in Peki’in. /b Rabbi Yehoshua b said to them: What novel /b idea b was /b taught b today in the study hall? They said to him: We are your students and we drink /b from b your water, /b i.e., all of our Torah knowledge comes from you, and therefore how can we tell you something you have not already learned? b He said to them: Even so, there cannot be a study hall without a novelty. /b ,He asked them: b Whose week was it, /b i.e. who was the lecturer this week? They said to him: b It was Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya’s week. /b He inquired: b And on what /b subject b was the lecture today? They said to him: /b He spoke b about the portion of /b the mitzva of b assembly. /b Rabbi Yehoshua persisted: b And what /b verse b did he interpret homiletically with regard to /b this mitzva?,They said to him that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya interpreted the following verse: b “Assemble the people, the men and the women and the little ones” /b (Deuteronomy 31:12). This verse is puzzling: b If men come to learn, /b and b women, /b who might not understand, b come /b at least b to hear, why do the little ones come? /b They come b in order /b for God to b give a reward to those who bring them, /b i.e., God credits those who bring their children to the assembly. Rabbi Yehoshua b said to them: /b This b good pearl /b of wisdom b was in your hands, and you tried to conceal it from me? /b ,Upon seeing that Rabbi Yehoshua was pleased to hear this idea, Rabbi Yoḥa ben Beroka and Rabbi Elazar ben Ḥisma said to him: b Additionally, /b Rabbi Elazar b interpreted /b the following verses b homiletically: “You have affirmed, this day, /b that b the Lord /b is your God, and that you will walk in His ways and keep His statutes, His mitzvot, and His ordices, and listen to His voice. b And the Lord has affirmed you, this day, /b to be His treasure, as He promised you, and that you should keep all His mitzvot” (Deuteronomy 26:17–18).,Rabbi Elazar explained: b The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the Jewish people: You have made Me a single entity in the world, /b as you singled Me out as separate and unique. b And /b therefore b I will make you a single entity in the world, /b as you will be a treasured nation, chosen by God. b You have made Me a single entity in the world, as it is written: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One” /b (Deuteronomy 6:4). b And /b therefore b I will make you a single entity in the world, as it is stated: /b |
|
13. Babylonian Talmud, Megillah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •philosophy (greek/hellenistic) Found in books: Najman (2010), The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, 85| 24b. הכא נמי איכא נצויי אביו ונצויי רבו:,פוחח פורס על שמע וכו': בעא מיניה עולא בר רב מאביי קטן פוחח מהו שיקרא בתורה,אמר ליה ותיבעי לך ערום ערום מאי טעמא לא משום כבוד צבור הכא נמי משום כבוד צבור:,סומא פורס על שמע וכו': תניא אמרו לו לרבי יהודה הרבה צפו לדרוש במרכבה ולא ראו אותה מימיהם,ור' יהודה התם באבנתא דליבא תליא מילתא והא קא מיכוין וידע הכא משום הנאה הוא והא לית ליה הנאה,ורבנן אית ליה הנאה כרבי יוסי דתניא א"ר יוסי כל ימי הייתי מצטער על מקרא זה (דברים כח, כט) והיית ממשש בצהרים כאשר ימשש העור באפלה וכי מה אכפת ליה לעור בין אפילה לאורה,עד שבא מעשה לידי פעם אחת הייתי מהלך באישון לילה ואפלה וראיתי סומא שהיה מהלך בדרך ואבוקה בידו אמרתי לו בני אבוקה זו למה לך אמר לי כל זמן שאבוקה בידי בני אדם רואין אותי ומצילין אותי מן הפחתין ומן הקוצין ומן הברקנין:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big כהן שיש בידיו מומין לא ישא את כפיו ר' יהודה אומר אף מי שהיו ידיו צבועות סטיס לא ישא את כפיו מפני שהעם מסתכלין בו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תנא מומין שאמרו בפניו ידיו ורגליו אמר ר' יהושע בן לוי ידיו בוהקניות לא ישא את כפיו תניא נמי הכי ידיו בוהקניות לא ישא את כפיו עקומות עקושות לא ישא את כפיו,אמר רב אסי חיפני (ובשיני) לא ישא את כפיו תניא נמי הכי אין מורידין לפני התיבה לא אנשי בית שאן ולא אנשי בית חיפה ולא אנשי טבעונין מפני שקורין לאלפין עיינין ולעיינין אלפין,אמר ליה רבי חייא לר' שמעון בר רבי אלמלי אתה לוי פסול אתה מן הדוכן משום דעבי קלך אתא אמר ליה לאבוה אמר ליה זיל אימא ליה כשאתה מגיע אצל (ישעיהו ח, יז) וחכיתי לה' לא נמצאת מחרף ומגדף,אמר רב הונא זבלגן לא ישא את כפיו והא ההוא דהוה בשיבבותיה דרב הונא והוה פריס ידיה ההוא דש בעירו הוה תניא נמי הכי זבלגן לא ישא את כפיו ואם היה דש בעירו מותר,א"ר יוחנן סומא באחת מעיניו לא ישא את כפיו והא ההוא דהוה בשיבבותיה דרבי יוחנן דהוה פריס ידיה ההוא דש בעירו הוה תניא נמי הכי סומא באחת מעיניו לא ישא את כפיו ואם היה דש בעירו מותר:,ר"י אומר מי שהיו ידיו צבועות לא ישא את כפיו: תנא אם רוב אנשי העיר מלאכתן בכך מותר:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big האומר איני עובר לפני התיבה בצבועין אף בלבנים לא יעבור בסנדל איני עובר אף יחף לא יעבור,העושה תפלתו עגולה סכנה ואין בה מצוה נתנה על מצחו או על פס ידו הרי זו דרך המינות ציפן זהב ונתנה על בית אונקלי שלו ה"ז דרך החיצונים:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מ"ט חיישינן שמא מינות נזרקה בו:,העושה תפלתו עגולה סכנה ואין בה מצוה: לימא תנינא להא דתנו רבנן תפלין מרובעות הלכה למשה מסיני ואמר רבא בתפרן ובאלכסונן,אמר רב פפא מתניתין דעבידא כי אמגוזא:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big האומר | 24b. b Here, also, /b according to Rabba bar Shimi, b it is /b to prevent b his father or teacher /b from b quarreling. /b ,§ We learned in the mishna: b One whose limbs are exposed [ i poḥe’aḥ /i ] may recite the /b introductory prayers and b blessing /b before b i Shema /i /b and translate the Torah reading into Aramaic, but he may not read from the Torah. b Ulla bar Rav raised a dilemma before Abaye: What is /b the i halakha /i with regard to whether b a minor whose limbs are exposed /b may b read from the Torah? /b Can it be argued that a minor’s bare limbs do not fall under the category of nakedness, and therefore it is permitted for him to read the Torah despite the fact that parts of his body are exposed?,Abaye b said to him: And /b according to this reasoning, b raise the dilemma /b with regard to a minor who is totally b naked. What is the reason that /b a minor who is b naked may not /b read the Torah? It is b due to respect for the public. Here, too, /b a i poḥe’aḥ /i may not read from the Torah b due to respect for the public. /b ,The mishna continues: One who is b blind may recite the /b introductory prayers and b blessing /b before b i Shema /i , /b and he may also translate the Torah reading into Aramaic. Rabbi Yehuda says: Anyone who has not seen the luminaries in his life may not recite the first of the blessings before i Shema /i , which is the blessing over the luminaries. b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b they said to Rabbi Yehuda: Many have seen /b enough with their mind b to expound upon the /b Divine b Chariot, although they have never /b actually b seen it. /b Similarly, even one who has never seen the luminaries may recite the blessing., b And /b how does b Rabbi Yehuda /b counter this argument? He can say that b there, /b with regard to the Chariot, b the matter depends upon the heart’s comprehension, and one can concentrate /b his mind b and understand /b the Chariot even if he has never actually seen it. But b here, /b with regard to the luminaries, the blessing is recited b due to the benefit /b one derives from them, b and /b one who is blind b does not derive /b any b benefit /b from them, and therefore he may not recite a blessing over them., b And the Rabbis /b maintain that even a blind man b derives benefit /b from the luminaries, b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Yosei said: All of my life I was troubled by this verse, /b which I did not understand: b “And you shall grope at noon as the blind man gropes in the darkness” /b (Deuteronomy 28:29). I was perplexed: b What /b does it b matter to a blind /b person b whether /b it is b dark or light? /b He cannot see in any event, so why does the verse speak about a blind man in the darkness?,I continued to ponder the matter b until /b the following b incident occurred to me. I was once walking in the absolute darkness of the night, and I saw a blind man who was walking on /b his b way with a torch in his hands. I said to him: My son, why do you /b need b this torch /b if you are blind? b He said to me: As long as I have a torch in my hand, people see me and save me from the pits and the thorns and the thistles. /b Even a blind man derives at least indirect benefit from the light, and therefore he may recite the blessing over the heavenly luminaries., strong MISHNA: /strong b A priest who has blemishes on his hands may not lift his hands /b to recite the Priestly Benediction. Because of his blemish, people will look at his hands, and it is prohibited to look at the hands of the priests during the Priestly Benediction. b Rabbi Yehuda says: Even one whose hands were colored with i satis /i , /b a blue dye, b may not lift his hands /b to recite the Priestly Benediction b because the congregation will look at him. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong It is b taught /b in a i baraita /i : b The blemishes that /b the Sages b said /b disqualify a priest from reciting the Priestly Benediction include any blemishes found b on his face, hands, and feet, /b but not blemishes that are not visible to others. b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: /b If b his hands are spotted /b with white blotches, b he may not lift his hands /b to recite the Priestly Benediction. The Gemara notes that b this is also taught /b in a i baraita /i : If a priest’s b hands are spotted, he may not lift his hands /b to recite the Priestly Benediction. Similarly, if his hands are b curved /b inward b or bent /b sideways, b he may not lift his hands /b to recite the Priestly Benediction.,Apropos the previous discussion, b Rav Asi said: /b A priest b from Haifa or Beit She’an may not lift his hands /b to recite the Priestly Benediction, as he does not know how to properly pronounce the guttural letters. b This is also taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One may not allow the people of Beit She’an, nor the people of Beit Haifa, nor the people of Tivonin to pass before the ark /b in order to lead the service b because they pronounce i alef /i as i ayin /i and i ayin /i as i alef /i , /b and they thereby distort the meaning of the prayers.,The Gemara relates that b Rabbi Ḥiyya /b once b said to Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi: b If you were a Levite, you would be disqualified from /b singing on b the platform /b in the Temple courtyard b because your voice is thick. /b offended by this remark, Rabbi Shimon b went and told his father, /b Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, what Rabbi Ḥiyya had said. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b said to him: Go /b and b say to him: When you /b study and b reach /b the verse: b “And I will wait upon [ i veḥikkiti /i ] the Lord” /b (Isaiah 8:17), b will you not be a maligner and a blasphemer? /b Rabbi Ḥiyya, who was from Babylonia, was unable to differentiate between the letters i ḥet /i and i heh /i , and he would therefore pronounce the word i veḥikkiti /i as i vehikkiti /i , which means: And I will strike., b Rav Huna said: /b A priest b whose eyes /b constantly b run /b with tears b may not lift his hands /b to recite the Priestly Benediction. The Gemara asks: b Wasn’t there a certain /b priest with this condition b in the neighborhood of Rav Huna, and he would spread his hands /b and recite the Priestly Benediction? The Gemara answers: b That /b priest b was a familiar /b figure b in his town. /b Since the other residents were accustomed to seeing him, he would not draw their attention during the Priestly Benediction. b This is also taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One whose eyes run should not lift his hands /b to recite the Priestly Benediction, b but if he is a familiar /b figure b in his town, he is permitted /b to do so., b Rabbi Yoḥa said: One who is blind in one eye may not lift his hands /b to recite the Priestly Benediction because people will gaze at him. The Gemara asks: b Wasn’t there a certain /b priest who was blind in one eye b in the neighborhood of Rabbi Yoḥa, and he would lift his hands /b and recite the Priestly Benediction? The Gemara answers: b That /b priest b was a familiar /b figure b in his town, /b and therefore he would not attract attention during the Priestly Benediction. b This is also taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One who is blind in one eye may not lift his hands /b and recite the Priestly Benediction, b but if he is a familiar /b figure b in his town, he is permitted /b to do so.,We learned in the mishna that b Rabbi Yehuda said: One whose hands are colored should not lift his hands /b to recite the Priestly Benediction. It was b taught /b in a i baraita /i : b If most of the townspeople are engaged in this occupation, /b dyeing, b he is permitted /b to recite the Priestly Benediction, as the congregation will not pay attention to his stained hands., strong MISHNA: /strong b One who says: I will not pass before the ark /b to lead the prayer service b in colored /b garments, b may not pass /b before the ark to lead the prayer service b even in white /b garments. There is concern that one who insists on wearing clothing of a specific color during his prayers is a heretic and therefore unfit to lead the service. Similarly, if one says: b I will not pass /b before the ark b wearing sandals, he may not pass /b before it b even barefoot, /b as he is not acting in accordance with the teachings of the Sages., b One who constructs his phylacteries /b in b a round /b shape exposes himself to b danger /b during times of persecution, when foreign governments impose a ban on the mitzva of phylacteries, b and /b yet he does b not /b fulfill the b mitzva /b to don phylacteries, as phylacteries must be square. b If one placed /b the phylacteries worn on the head b on his forehead, /b and not in its proper place above his hairline, b or /b if he placed the phylacteries worn on the arm b on his palm, /b and not on his biceps, b this is the way of the heretics, /b i.e., those who reject the tradition of the Sages with regard to the proper placement of the phylacteries. If b one plated /b his phylacteries b with gold or placed /b the phylacteries worn on the arm b on /b the outside of b his sleeve [ i unkeli /i ], this is the way of the outsiders, /b i.e., those who do not take part in the traditions of the Jewish people., strong GEMARA: /strong b What is the reason /b that one who wishes to pray only with white clothes or barefoot is not permitted to lead the prayer? b We are concerned that perhaps he has been imbued with heresy, /b as these are the practices of idolaters. He is therefore barred from leading the service.,We learned in the mishna: b One who constructs his phylacteries /b in b a round /b shape exposes himself to b danger and /b does b not /b fulfill the b mitzva /b to don phylacteries. The Gemara comments: b Let us say /b that b we /b already b learned /b in this mishna b that which the Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : The requirement that b phylacteries /b must be b square is a i halakha /i /b transmitted b to Moses from Sinai. And Rava said /b about this: Square means b along their seams and their diagonals [ i alakhso /i ], /b i.e., they must be perfectly square. It would seem that all this was already stated in the mishna, which says that round phylacteries are disqualified., b Rav Pappa said: /b It is possible to understand that b the mishna /b is referring to phylacteries b that one constructed /b to be round b like a nut, /b i.e., in the shape of a ball. However, the mishna does not indicate that the phylacteries must be square, as it does not address the case of phylacteries that are rounded but not a true sphere., strong MISHNA: /strong If b one says /b in his prayers: |
|
14. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •philosophy (greek/hellenistic) Found in books: Najman (2010), The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, 85 | 32a. b And he would make a space above and a space below /b the text b and would prepare the passages of /b the i mezuza /i in the b open /b manner, i.e., he would begin the second passage on the line following the end of the first passage. b I said to him: My teacher, /b for b what reason /b do you prepare the passages in the open manner, when in a Torah scroll those same passages are written in the closed manner? b He said to me: Since /b the passages b are not adjacent /b to one another b in the Torah, /b as the first passage is Deuteronomy 6:4–9 and the second is Deuteronomy 11:13–21, I prepare them as open passages.,The Gemara continues: b And Rav Ḥael says /b that b Rav says: /b The b i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. What, is it not /b correct that Rav stated this b with regard to /b Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar’s opinion that one prepares the passages in the b open /b manner? This would present a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Huna, Rav’s student, who wrote them in the closed manner.,The Gemara answers: b No; /b he meant that the i halakha /i is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar b with regard to /b the b space /b that one must leave above and below the text. The Gemara asks: b And how much space /b must one leave? b Rav Menashya bar Ya’akov says, and some say /b it is b Rav Shmuel bar Ya’akov /b who b says: /b The space b of a full scribe’s clip [ i atba /i ], /b with which the sheets of parchment are held., b Abaye said to Rav Yosef: And you, do you not hold that when Rav said /b that the i halakha /i is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar he was referring b to /b the b space, /b not the manner of writing the passages? b But Rav is of /b the opinion that an established b custom /b must be observed, b and nowadays the general custom /b is to write the passages of the i mezuza /i b in /b the b closed /b manner.,The Gemara provides the source that according to Rav one must observe established customs. i Ḥalitza /i is the ritual that frees the widow of a childless man from the obligation to enter into levirate marriage with her late husband’s brother. This ceremony involves the widow removing her brother-in-law’s sandal from his foot. Rabba spoke of the importance of observing customs in that context, b as Rabba says /b that b Rav Kahana says /b that b Rav says: If Elijah comes and says /b that b one performs i ḥalitza /i with a shoe, /b the Sages b listen to him. /b But if he says that b one may not perform i ḥalitza /i with a sandal, they do not listen to him, as the people are already accustomed /b to performing i ḥalitza /i b with a sandal. /b ,The Gemara presents another version of Rav’s statement: b And Rav Yosef says /b that b Rav Kahana says /b that b Rav says: If Elijah comes and says /b that b one may not perform i ḥalitza /i with a shoe, /b the Sages b listen to him; /b if he says that b one may not perform i ḥalitza /i with a sandal, they do not listen to him, as the people are already accustomed /b to performing i ḥalitza /i b with a sandal. /b ,Abaye continues: b And we say, /b when discussing these versions of his statement: b What /b is the difference b between /b these two versions of his statement? The b difference is /b whether one may use b a shoe i ab initio /i . /b In any case, according to both statements Rav maintains that a custom must be observed, and the custom in this case is to write the passages in a closed manner. b Rather, /b must one b not conclude from it /b that when Rav says that the i halakha /i is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar he was speaking b of /b the b space, /b not the manner of preparing the passages? The Gemara affirms: b Conclude from it /b that this is correct.,§ b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: /b It is b a mitzva /b i ab initio /i b to prepare /b the passages of a i mezuza /i in the b closed /b manner, b but if one prepared them /b in the b open /b manner, it is b permitted /b to use the i mezuza /i . b And what is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar saying /b when he says that Rabbi Meir would prepare the passages in the b open /b manner? He means that one may prepare them b even /b in the b open /b manner.,The Gemara suggests: b Let us say /b that a i baraita /i b supports his /b opinion: b Similarly, /b just as one may not convert phylacteries of the head into phylacteries of the arm, with regard to b a Torah scroll that became worn and /b parchment of b phylacteries that became worn, one may not fashion them into a i mezuza /i /b by excising the relevant passages, despite the fact that the Torah passages of a i mezuza /i appear in them. This is prohibited b because one does not reduce /b the sanctity of an item b from /b a level of b greater sanctity, /b that of a Torah scroll or phylacteries, b to /b a level of b lesser sanctity, /b that of a i mezuza /i . The Gemara infers from this i baraita /i : If it were permitted to b reduce /b the sanctity of an item from a level of greater sanctity to a level of lesser sanctity, one could b fashion /b a i mezuza /i from a Torah scroll.,The Gemara explains the proof: But b why /b is that the i halakha /i , when b here, /b in a Torah scroll, the passages are prepared in the b closed /b manner, b but there, /b in a i mezuza /i , the passages are prepared in the b open /b manner? Evidently, it is permitted to write a i mezuza /i with the passages prepared in the closed manner. The Gemara refutes this proof: b Perhaps /b one should infer from the i baraita /i that were it not for the fact that it is prohibited to reduce the sanctity of an item from a level of greater sanctity to a level of lesser sanctity, one would be allowed b to complete /b a line or two of a i mezuza /i by sewing to it those lines from a Torah scroll or parchment of phylacteries that became worn, but one may not fashion an entire i mezuza /i from a sheet of a Torah scroll or parchment of phylacteries, as the passages in a Torah scroll and phylacteries are prepared in the closed manner.,The Gemara asks another question: The i baraita /i indicates b that /b if it were permitted to b reduce /b the sanctity of an item from a level of greater sanctity to a level of lesser sanctity, one could b fashion /b a i mezuza /i from phylacteries. b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i that it is b a i halakha /i /b transmitted b to Moses from Sinai /b that the passages of b phylacteries /b are written b on parchment, /b the outer layer of an animal’s hide, b and /b the passages of b a i mezuza /i /b are written b on i dokhsostos /i , /b the inner layer, and when writing on b parchment, /b one writes b on the side of /b the hide that faced the b flesh; /b when writing on b i dokhsostos /i , /b one writes b on the side of /b the hide on which there was b hair? /b How, then, can one use the other side of the hide for a i mezuza /i ? The Gemara answers that this requirement is of i dokhsostos /i for a i mezuza /i is stated b as a mitzva, /b but it is not indispensable.,The Gemara asks: b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i that if one b changed /b between parchment and i dokhsostos /i , the item is b unfit? /b The Gemara responds that this i baraita /i is referring b to phylacteries /b that one wrote on i dokhsostos /i in the manner of a i mezuza /i , not to a i mezuza /i which one wrote on parchment. The Gemara raises a further difficulty: b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i that if one b changed whether in this /b manner b or in that /b manner, it is b unfit? /b The Gemara explains that this i baraita /i does not mean that one changed either in the case of phylacteries or a i mezuza /i . Rather, both b this /b manner b and that /b manner are referring b to phylacteries, and this /b case is b where one wrote them on parchment /b but b on the side of /b the hide on which there was b hair, /b not on the side that faced the flesh, b and that /b |
|
15. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •philosophy (greek/hellenistic) Found in books: Najman (2010), The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, 85| 24a. ואם אינו ענין לאכילה תנהו ענין לאיסור הנאה,אי מה כאן בשריפה אף כל איסורין שבתורה בשריפה אמר קרא (ויקרא ו, כג) בקדש באש תשרף בקדש בשריפה ואין כל איסורין שבתורה בשריפה,והאי בקדש באש תשרף להכי הוא דאתא האי מיבעי ליה לכדרבי שמעון דתניא רבי שמעון אומר בקדש באש תשרף לימד על חטאת ששורפין אותה בקדש ואין לי אלא זו בלבד פסולי קדשי קדשים ואמורי קדשים קלים מנין תלמוד לומר (וכל) בקדש באש תשרף,אמר ליה רבי יונתן רבך מהאי קרא קאמר לה (שמות כט, לד) ואם יותר מבשר המלואים ומן הלחם עד הבקר וגו' שאין תלמוד לומר לא יאכל ומה תלמוד לומר לא יאכל אם אינו ענין לגופיה דהא כתיב (שמות כט, לד) ושרפת את הנותר באש תנהו ענין לשאר איסורין שבתורה ואם אינו ענין לאכילה תנהו ענין לאיסור הנאה,אי מה כאן בשריפה אף כל איסורין שבתורה בשריפה אמר קרא ושרפת את הנותר נותר בשריפה ואין כל איסורין שבתורה בשריפה,והאי לא יאכל להכי הוא דאתא האי מיבעי ליה לכדרבי אלעזר דאמר ר' אלעזר לא יאכל כי קדש הוא כל שבקדש פסול בא הכתוב ליתן לא תעשה על אכילתו,אמר אביי לעולם מקרא קמא ואיפוך דליכתוב באש תשרף ולא בעי לא תאכל מה תלמוד לומר לא תאכל אם אינו ענין לגופו דנפקא ליה מדרבי אלעזר תנהו ענין לכל איסורין שבתורה ואם אינו ענין לאכילה תנהו ענין לאיסור הנאה,אי מה כאן בשריפה אף כל איסורין שבתורה בשריפה אמר קרא הנותר הנותר בשריפה ואין כל איסורין שבתורה בשריפה,אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי ואימא ליחודי ליה לאו לגופיה הוא דאתא דאי מדרבי אלעזר אין לוקין על לאו שבכללות,אלא אמר רב פפא מהכא (ויקרא ז, יט) והבשר אשר יגע בכל טמא לא יאכל באש ישרף שאין תלמוד לומר לא יאכל מה תלמוד לומר לא יאכל,אם אינו ענין לגופו דהא נפקא ליה מקל וחומר ממעשר הקל ומה מעשר הקל אמרה תורה (דברים כו, יד) לא בערתי ממנו בטמא בשר קדש חמור לא כל שכן,וכי תימא אין מזהירין מן הדין הקישא הוא דכתיב (דברים יב, יז) לא תוכל לאכול בשעריך מעשר דגנך תירושך ויצהרך ובכורות בקרך וגו',מה תלמוד לומר לא יאכל אם אינו ענין לגופו תנהו ענין לכל איסורין שבתורה ואם אינו ענין לאכילה תנהו ענין להנאה,אי מה כאן בשריפה אף כל איסורין שבתורה בשריפה אמר קרא הנותר הנותר בשריפה ואין כל איסורין שבתורה בשריפה,אמר לי' רבינא לרב אשי ואימא לעבור עליו בשני לאוין לאו מי אמר אביי אכל פוטיתא לוקה ארבע,נמלה לוקה חמש | 24a. b And if it does not /b apply to b the matter of /b the prohibition against b eating, /b as the prohibition against eating these items has already been mentioned, b apply it to the matter of the prohibition of /b deriving b benefit. /b ,The Gemara continues: b Lest /b one say that the verse indicates that b just as here, /b the sin-offering is disposed of b with burning, so too, all the prohibited /b items b in the Torah /b must be disposed of b with burning, /b therefore b the verse said: “In the sacred place…shall be burnt with fire” /b (Leviticus 6:23). This indicates that only that which is disqualified b in the sacred place /b is disposed of b with burning, but all /b other b prohibited /b items b in the Torah /b need b not /b be disposed of b with burning. /b ,Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani asked: b And did this /b verse: b “In the sacred place…shall be burnt with fire,” come to /b teach b this /b i halakha /i ? b It is needed /b to teach b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon, as it was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Shimon says: “In the sacred place…shall be burnt with fire”; /b this b taught that one /b must b burn a /b disqualified b sin-offering in the sacred place, /b and not outside the Temple. b And I have only /b derived b this, /b meaning the sin-offering. b From where do I derive that disqualified offerings of the most sacred order and portions consumed /b on the altar, such as the fats b of offerings of minor sanctity /b that become impure, are burned in the Temple courtyard? b The verse states: “In the sacred place…shall be burnt with fire.” /b This indicates that any disqualified offering must be burned in the sacred place.,The Sage who taught this i halakha /i to Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani b said to him: Rabbi Yonatan, your teacher, said that /b same i halakha /i b from this verse: “And if the flesh of the consecration /b offering, b or of the bread, remains until the morning, /b then you shall burn the leftover with fire; it shall not be eaten, because it is sacred” (Exodus 29:34). b As /b there is b no /b need for b the verse to state: “It shall not be eaten,” what /b is the meaning when b the verse states: “It shall not be eaten”? If it does not refer to the /b subject b matter itself, as it is /b already b written /b explicitly: b “Then you shall burn the leftover with fire,” /b which indicates that one may not eat it, b refer it to the matter of the other prohibitions in the Torah. And if it does not refer to the matter of /b the prohibition against b eating, /b as eating these items is explicitly prohibited, b refer it to the matter of the prohibition of /b deriving b benefit. /b This indicates that it is prohibited for one to derive benefit from any item that it is prohibited for him to eat.,The Gemara continues: b Lest /b one say that the verse indicates that b just as here, /b the sin-offering is disposed of b with burning, so too, all the prohibited /b items b in the Torah, /b from which one may not benefit, must be disposed of b with burning, /b therefore b the verse said: “You shall burn the leftover,” /b indicating that the b leftover /b sacrificial meat must be disposed of b with burning; however, all /b other b prohibitions in the Torah /b need b not /b be disposed of b with burning, /b despite the fact that it is prohibited to derive benefit from them.,The Gemara challenges: b And did this /b phrase: b “It shall not be eaten,” come /b to teach b this /b prohibition against deriving benefit? b This /b phrase b is needed /b to teach b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar said /b with regard to the statement in the verse: b “It shall not be eaten, because it is sacred,” /b that b the verse comes to place a negative /b mitzva of b eating on whatever has been /b rendered b disqualified in the sacred place. /b In other words, this verse teaches a general i halakha /i that one who eats from offerings that have been disqualified in the Temple transgresses a negative mitzva and is liable to be flogged. It teaches nothing with regard to a prohibition against deriving benefit., b Abaye said: Actually, /b derive this i halakha /i b from the first verse /b cited by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: “And any sin-offering, of which any of the blood is brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the sacred place, shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire” (Leviticus 6:23). b And reverse /b the construct of his exposition. b Let /b the verse b write: “It shall be burnt with fire,” and it /b will b not need /b to write: b “Shall not be eaten.” /b For b what /b purpose then does b the verse state: “It shall not be eaten”? If it does not apply to /b the subject b matter itself, as that was /b already b derived from /b the statement of b Rabbi Elazar /b that whatever has been rendered disqualified in the sacred place may not be eaten, b apply it to all /b other b prohibitions in the Torah, /b including leavened bread on Passover and a stoned ox. b And if it does not /b apply to the prohibition against b eating, /b which is written explicitly, then b apply it to the prohibition of /b deriving b benefit. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Lest /b one say that the verse indicates that b just as here, /b the leftover sacrificial meat is disposed of b with burning, so too, all the prohibited /b items b in the Torah, /b from which one may not benefit, must be disposed of b with burning, /b therefore b the verse said: /b “You shall burn b the leftover,” /b indicating that the b leftover /b sacrificial meat must b be /b disposed of b with burning; however, all /b other b prohibited /b items b in the Torah /b need b not /b be disposed of b with burning. /b , b Rav Pappa said to Abaye: And /b why do you hold that the phrase: “You shall not eat,” describing the sin-offering that was sacrificed inside the Sanctuary, is not needed for other purposes? b Say /b that this expression b comes /b in order b to designate a negative /b mitzva for this prohibition b itself. As, if /b this prohibition were derived only b from /b the source quoted by b Rabbi Elazar, /b there will be a prohibition to eat the meat of the sin-offering whose blood was brought into the sanctuary; however, one would not be liable to be flogged for violating it, because b one is not flogged for /b violating b a negative /b mitzva b stated in general terms. /b One is not flogged for violating a negative mitzva that contains several different prohibitions, such as this one, which refers to all disqualified offerings. This is because the negative mitzva is formulated too broadly. Therefore, it is possible to say that when the Torah states: “You shall not eat” with regard to this issue, it is teaching that there is a particular prohibition here and that one is flogged for violating it. If so, the verse cannot indicate a general prohibition against deriving benefit., b Rather, /b this suggestion should be rejected, and b Rav Pappa said /b that one derives this i halakha /i b from here: “And the flesh that touches any impure thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire. /b And as for the flesh, every one that is pure may eat of it” (Leviticus 7:19). b As /b there is b no /b need for b the verse to state: “It shall not be eaten,” what /b does it mean when b the verse states: “It shall not be eaten”? /b , b If it does not /b refer to the subject b matter itself, as that /b can be b derived by /b means of b an i a fortiori /i /b inference b from /b the second b tithe, /b the i halakhot /i of b which /b are more b lenient /b than those of offerings, then it must refer to something else. As it is possible to say: b If /b with regard to the second b tithe, which is /b more b lenient /b because it does not have the status of an offering, b the Torah said /b that when one recites the confession over the tithes, when destroying the tithes remaining in one’s possession that had not yet been given to the appropriate recipient, he says: “I have not eaten from it in my mourning, b neither have I removed it while impure” /b (Deuteronomy 26:14), indicating that it is prohibited for one to remove tithes while impure, then with regard to b consecrated meat, /b which is more b stringent, all the more so /b is it b not /b clear that it may not be eaten while a person is impure?, b And if you say /b that there is a general principle that b we do not warn, /b i.e., we may not deduce a prohibition, b through logical derivation /b alone, then one could respond that his issue is not only derived through an i a fortiori /i inference; rather, b it is /b also derived from an analogy based on b a juxtaposition. As it is written: “You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, or of your wine, or of your oil, or the firstborn of your herd /b or of your flock, nor any of your vows which you have vowed, nor your voluntary offerings, nor the offering of your hand” (Deuteronomy 12:17). Since the verse itself juxtaposes tithes to offerings, it indicates that there is a prohibition with regard to offerings just as there is with regard to tithes.,The Gemara continues explaining Rav Pappa’s opinion: For b what purpose /b then does b the verse state: “It shall not be eaten” /b with regard to impure consecrated meat? b If it does not /b apply to b the /b subject b matter /b of this verse b itself, /b as that prohibition is derived from the second tithe, then b apply it to the matter of all prohibited /b items b in the Torah. And if it does not /b apply to the prohibition against b eating, /b since that is clear, b apply it to the prohibition of /b deriving b benefit. /b ,And if you say: b Lest /b one say that the verse indicates that b just as here, /b the meat that became impure in the Temple is disposed of b with burning, so too, all the prohibited /b items b in the Torah /b must be disposed of b with burning, /b therefore b the verse said: “The leftover,” /b indicating b that the leftover /b sacrificial meat must be disposed of b with burning; however, all /b other b prohibited /b items b in the Torah /b need b not /b be disposed of b with burning. /b , b Ravina said to Rav Ashi: And say /b that this expression: “It shall not be eaten,” comes to teach not the prohibition against deriving benefit, but rather that one who transgresses this negative mitzva b violates two prohibitions. /b And there is precedent for such an explanation, as b didn’t Abaye say /b with regard to a parallel case: b If one ate a small water creature /b [ b i putita /i /b ], b he is flogged /b with b four /b sets of lashes because one violates four prohibitions when eating such a creature? Two of these prohibitions are found in the verse that discusses all types of creeping animals: “You shall not make yourselves detestable with any swarming thing that swarms, neither shall you make yourselves impure with them, that you should be defiled by them” (Leviticus 11:43). A third prohibition applies to creeping animals that live in the water, as the verses say: “And all that have neither fins nor scales…They shall be a detestable thing unto you; you shall not eat of their flesh” (Leviticus 11:10–11). A fourth prohibition is cited in the verse: “And whatever does not have fins and scales you shall not eat; it is impure unto you” (Deuteronomy 14:10).,Similarly, if one ate b an ant, he is flogged /b with b five /b sets of lashes, two sets for the previously mentioned prohibitions of eating a creeping animal, a third based on the verse: “And every creeping thing that swarms upon the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 11:41), and a fourth based on the verse: “All creeping things that swarm upon the earth, them you shall not eat; for they are a detestable thing” (Leviticus 11:42). A fifth prohibition is stated in the verse: “You shall not make yourselves impure through every creeping thing that swarms upon the earth” (Leviticus 11:44). |
|
16. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •philosophy (greek/hellenistic) Found in books: Najman (2010), The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, 85| 89b. שפרו ורבו עליה ישראל מדבר סיני שירדה שנאה לעכו"ם עליו ומה שמו חורב שמו ופליגא דר' אבהו דא"ר אבהו הר סיני שמו ולמה נקרא הר חורב שירדה חורבה לעכו"ם עליו:,מנין שקושרין לשון של זהורית וכו': כשנים כשני מיבעי ליה א"ר יצחק אמר להם הקב"ה לישראל אם יהיו חטאיכם כשנים הללו שסדורות ובאות מששת ימי בראשית ועד עכשיו כשלג ילבינו: דרש רבא מאי דכתיב (ישעיה א, יח) לכו נא ונוכחה יאמר ה' לכו נא בואו נא מיבעי ליה יאמר ה' אמר ה' מיבעי ליה לעתיד לבא יאמר להם הקב"ה לישראל לכו נא אצל אבותיכם ויוכיחו אתכם,ויאמרו לפניו רבש"ע אצל מי נלך אצל אברהם שאמרת לו (בראשית טו, יג) ידוע תדע ולא בקש רחמים עלינו אצל יצחק שבירך את עשו (שם כז, מ) והיה כאשר תריד ולא בקש רחמים עלינו אצל יעקב שאמרת לו (שם מו, ד) אנכי ארד עמך מצרימה ולא בקש רחמים עלינו אצל מי נלך עכשיו יאמר ה' אמר להן הקב"ה הואיל ותליתם עצמכם בי אם יהיו חטאיכם כשנים כשלג ילבינו:,א"ר שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יונתן מ"ד (ישעיה סג, טז) כי אתה אבינו כי אברהם לא ידענו וישראל לא יכירנו אתה ה' אבינו גואלנו מעולם שמך לעתיד לבא יאמר לו הקב"ה לאברהם בניך חטאו לי אמר לפניו רבש"ע ימחו על קדושת שמך אמר אימר ליה ליעקב דהוה ליה צער גידול בנים אפשר דבעי רחמי עלייהו אמר ליה בניך חטאו אמר לפניו רבש"ע ימחו על קדושת שמך אמר לא בסבי טעמא ולא בדרדקי עצה אמר לו ליצחק בניך חטאו לי אמר לפניו רבש"ע בני ולא בניך בשעה שהקדימו לפניך נעשה לנשמע קראת להם (שמות ד, כב) בני בכורי עכשיו בני ולא בניך,ועוד כמה חטאו כמה שנותיו של אדם שבעים שנה דל עשרין דלא ענשת עלייהו פשו להו חמשין דל כ"ה דלילותא פשו להו כ"ה דל תרתי סרי ופלגא דצלויי ומיכל ודבית הכסא פשו להו תרתי סרי ופלגא אם אתה סובל את כולם מוטב ואם לאו פלגא עלי ופלגא עליך ואת"ל כולם עלי הא קריבית נפשי קמך פתחו ואמרו (כי) אתה אבינו אמר להם יצחק עד שאתם מקלסין לי קלסו להקב"ה ומחוי להו יצחק הקב"ה בעינייהו מיד נשאו עיניהם למרום ואומרים (ישעיה סג, טז) אתה ה' אבינו גואלנו מעולם שמך,א"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן ראוי היה יעקב אבינו לירד למצרים בשלשלאות של ברזל אלא שזכותו גרמה לו דכתיב (הושע יא, ד) בחבלי אדם אמשכם בעבותות אהבה ואהיה להם כמרימי עול על לחיהם ואט אליו אוכיל:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big המוציא עצים כדי לבשל ביצה קלה תבלין כדי לתבל ביצה קלה ומצטרפין זה עם זה קליפי אגוזין קליפי רמונים איסטיס ופואה כדי לצבוע בהן בגד קטן פי סבכה מי רגלים נתר ובורית קמוליא ואשלג כדי לכבס בגד קטן פי סבכה רבי יהודה אומר כדי להעביר את הכתם:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תנינא חדא זימנא קנה כדי לעשות קולמוס אם היה עב או מרוסס כדי לבשל ביצה קלה שבביצים טרופה ונתונה באילפס מהו דתימא התם הוא דלא חזי למידי אבל עצים דחזו לככא דאקלידא אפילו כל שהוא קמ"ל:,תבלין כדי לתבל ביצה קלה: ורמינהו תבלין שנים וג' שמות ממין אחד או משלשה מינין (ושם אחד) אסורין ומצטרפין זה עם זה ואמר חזקיה | 89b. because b the Jewish people were fruitful /b [ b i paru /i /b ] b and multiplied in it; the Sinai Desert, /b because b hatred descended upon the nations of the world on it, /b on the mountain on which the Jewish people received the Torah. b And what is /b the mountain’s true b name? Horeb is its name. And /b that b disputes /b the opinion of b Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu said: Mount Sinai is its name. And why is it called Mount Horeb? /b It is because b destruction [ i ḥurba /i ] of the nations of the world descended upon it. /b ,We learned in the mishna: b From where /b is it derived b that one ties a scarlet strip /b of wool to the scapegoat? As it says: “If your sins be like scarlet [ i kashanim /i ], they will become white like snow” (Isaiah 1:18). The Gemara wonders at this: Why does the verse use the plural form: b i Kashanim /i ? It should have /b used the singular form: b i Kashani /i . Rabbi Yitzḥak said /b that b the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the Jewish people: /b Even b if your sins are /b as numerous b as those years [ i kashanim /i ] that have proceeded continuously from the six days of Creation until now, they will become white like snow. Rava taught: What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “Go please and let us reason together, the Lord will say” /b (Isaiah 1:18)? Why does the verse say: b Go please? It should have /b said: b Come please. /b And why does the verse say: b The Lord will say? /b The prophet’s message is based on something that God already said. Therefore, the verse b should have /b said: b God said. /b Rather, the explanation of this verse is that b in the future /b that will surely b come, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will say to the Jewish people: Go please to your Patriarchs, and they will rebuke you. /b , b And /b the Jewish people b will say before Him: Master of the Universe, to whom shall we go? /b Shall we go b to Abraham, to whom You said: “Know certainly /b that your seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years” (Genesis 15:13), b and he did not ask for mercy on our behalf? /b Or perhaps we should go b to Isaac, who blessed Esau /b and said: b “And it shall come to pass when you shall break loose, /b that you shall shake his yoke from off your neck” (Genesis 27:40), b and he did not ask for mercy on our behalf. /b Or perhaps we should go b to Jacob, to whom You said: “I will go down to Egypt with you” /b (Genesis 46:4), b and he did not ask for mercy on our behalf. /b And if so, b to whom shall we go? /b Shall we go to our Patriarchs, who do not have mercy on us? Rather, b now God /b Himself b says /b what punishment we deserve. b The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to them: Since you made yourselves dependent on Me, “If your sins be like scarlet, they will become white like snow.” /b ,Apropos the Jewish people assessing their forefathers, the Gemara cites a related teaching. b Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said /b that b Rabbi Yonatan said: What is /b the meaning of that b which is written: “For You are our Father; for Abraham knows us not, and Israel does not acknowledge us; You, Lord, are our Father, our Redeemer, everlasting is Your name” /b (Isaiah 63:16). b In the future /b that will surely b come, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will say to Abraham: Your children have sinned against Me. /b Abraham will b say before Him: Master of the Universe, /b if so, b let them be eradicated to sanctify Your name. /b God b said: I will say it to Jacob. /b Since he experienced b the pain of raising children, /b perhaps b he will ask for mercy on their behalf. /b He b said to /b Jacob: b Your children have sinned. /b Jacob b said before Him: Master of the Universe, /b if so, b let them be eradicated to sanctify Your name. /b The Holy One, Blessed be He, b said: There is no reason in elders and no wisdom in youth. /b Neither Abraham nor Jacob knew how to respond properly. He b said to Isaac: Your children have sinned against Me. /b Isaac b said before Him: Master of the Universe, /b are they b my children and not Your children? At /b Sinai, b when they accorded precedence to “We will do” over “We will listen” before You, /b didn’t You b call them, “My son, My firstborn son /b Israel” (Exodus 4:22)? b Now /b that they have sinned, are they b my children and not Your children? /b , b And furthermore, how much did they /b actually b sin? How long is a person’s life? Seventy years. Subtract /b the first b twenty /b years of his life. One b is not punished for /b sins committed then, as in heavenly matters, a person is only punished from age twenty. b Fifty /b years b remain for them. Subtract twenty-five /b years b of nights, /b and b twenty-five /b years b remain for them. Subtract twelve and a half /b years during which b one prays and eats and /b uses b the bathroom, /b and b twelve and a half /b years b remain for them. If You /b can b endure them all /b and forgive the sins committed during those years, b excellent. And if not, half /b of the sins are b upon me /b to bear b and half upon You. And if You say /b that b all of them, /b the sins of all twelve and a half years that remain, are b upon me, I sacrificed my soul before You /b and You should forgive them due to my merit. The Jewish people b began to say /b to Isaac: b You are our father. /b Only Isaac defended the Jewish people as a father would and displayed compassion toward his children. b Isaac said to them: Before you praise me, praise the Holy One, Blessed be He. And Isaac points to the Holy One, Blessed be He, before their eyes. Immediately they lifted their eyes to the heavens and say: “You, Lord, are our Father, our Redeemer, everlasting is Your name.” /b ,And since the Gemara mentioned Jacob’s descent to Egypt, the Gemara cites that which b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: Our father Jacob should have gone down to Egypt in iron chains /b as would an exile against his will, as decreed by God and related to Abraham. b However, his merit caused him /b to descend without suffering, b as it is written: “I drew them with cords of man, with bands of love, and I was to them as they that take off the yoke on their jaws, and I fed them gently” /b (Hosea 11:4)., strong MISHNA: /strong After an extended digression for a discussion of matters unrelated to the i halakhot /i of Shabbat, this mishna resumes treatment of the i halakhot /i of carrying from domain to domain on Shabbat. b One who carries out wood /b on Shabbat is liable for a measure b equivalent /b to the amount of wood necessary b to cook an easily /b cooked b egg. /b The measure that determines liability for carrying out b spices /b is b equivalent /b to that which is used b to season an easily /b cooked b egg. And /b all types of spices b join together with one another /b to constitute the measure for liability. The measure that determines liability for carrying out b nutshells, pomegranate peels, safflower, and madder, /b which are used to produce dyes, is b equivalent /b to the amount that is used b to dye a small garment /b placed b atop a /b woman’s b hairnet. /b The measure that determines liability for carrying out b urine, natron, and i borit /i , cimolian earth [ i Kimoleya /i ], and potash, /b all of which are abrasive materials used for laundry, is b equivalent /b to the amount that is used b to launder a small garment /b placed b atop a /b woman’s b hairnet. And Rabbi Yehuda says: /b The measure that determines liability for these materials is b equivalent /b to that which is used b to remove a stain. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong With regard to the measure of wood, the Gemara asks: Didn’t b we /b already b learn it once? /b As we learned in a mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out b a reed /b is b equivalent /b to that which is used b to make a quill. And if /b the reed b was thick /b and unfit for writing, b or /b if it was b fragmented, /b the measure that determines its liability is b equivalent /b to that which is used b to cook an egg most easily /b cooked, one that is already b beaten and placed in a stew pot. /b The measure of firewood is clearly delineated. The Gemara answers: Still, this mishna is necessary. b You might have said: There, /b the measure of the crushed reed reflects the fact that b it is not suitable for anything /b other than kindling. b However, /b regarding b wood that is suitable to /b be used b as a tooth of a key [ i aklida /i ], /b the measure that determines its liability should be b even any /b small b amount. /b Therefore, b it teaches us /b that wood is typically designated for burning, and that determines the measure for liability for carrying out wood on Shabbat.,We learned in the mishna that all types of b spices /b join together with one another to constitute the measure b equivalent /b to that which is used b to season an easily /b cooked b egg. The /b Gemara b raises a contradiction /b from that which we learned elsewhere: b Spices, /b which are prohibited due to b two or three /b different b prohibitions, /b e.g., one is prohibited due to i orla /i , and one due to the prohibition of untithed produce, and they were all b of a single species /b ( i Tosafot /i ), b or /b if they were b of three /b different b species, are prohibited, and they join together with each other /b to constitute a complete measure. b And Ḥizkiya said: /b |
|
17. Anon., 4 Ezra, 3.1 Tagged with subjects: •philosophy (greek/hellenistic) Found in books: Najman (2010), The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, 238 | 3.1. In the thirtieth year after the destruction of our city, I Salathiel, who am also called Ezra, was in Babylon. I was troubled as I lay on my bed, and my thoughts welled up in my heart, |
|
